Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I can appreciate feeling a need to knock down, shoot it or bury A B's blind faith/belief in the supernatural even though it has absolutely no foundation in fact, he has no way of substantiating his stance, he is totally unable to separate these faiths/beliefs from reality or nonsense and it's extremely unlikely he ever will.

The point I'm trying to make is that when someone is so determined to lock out reason to replace it with blind faith or belief it doesn't strike me as a worthwhile subject for discussion at the apparent level it's being taken at on this thread; purely on the basis that A B hasn't been able, so far, to elevate his beloved religion out of the nonsense, waffle zone.

Apart from the fact there are so many believe in these religions, the sort of faith stuff that A B does, considered against where the Zeus belief, example of faith ended up, it's not a subject that has earned itself the over elevated position that makes it worthy of any kind of really deep consideration or deep meaningful discussion.

A B's particularly intransigent position with religion on the forum says more about the power of indoctrination than it does about A B's devotional clinging on to religious belief, or religion itself. 

ippy

Dear Ippy,
I am sorry that you seem unable to understand the points I try to make about the shortcomings in assuming that there is no God and that we are all just reconstituted bits of star debris which just happen to exist on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten material in this vast universe.  I hope you will one day discover the reality of God's love for you and the amazing way He has brought you into existence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am sorry that you seem unable to understand the points I try to make about the shortcomings in assuming that there is no God and that we are all just reconstituted bits of star debris...

Why "just"?

[Shaker]

Dear Ippy,
I am sorry that you seem unable to understand the points I try to make about the shortcomings in assuming that there is no God and that we are all just reconstituted bits of star debris which just happen to exist on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten material in this vast universe.

Reality is a bit of a problem for you, isn't it, Alan?

Additionally, why do you assume that your points are not understood, when the fact is that they are understood but refuted?

I hope you will one day discover the reality of God's love for you and the amazing way He has brought you into existence.

We hope that one day you will start thinking rationally and coherently and non-fallaciously, but there's about as much chance of that happening as in your scenario.

[Alan Burns]

Although you seem quite happy to draw the conclusion 'soul.'

Soul is a conclusion I draw from the impossibility of material science to account for the reality of my conscious awareness and ability to implement acts of free will.  I know you will claim "personal incredulity" but to me it really is "impossibility".

[Shaker]

Soul is a conclusion I draw from the impossibility of material science to account for the reality of my conscious awareness and ability to implement acts of free will.  I know you will claim "personal incredulity" but to me it really is "impossibility".

Personal incredulity it is, then.

Not to mention a badly-disguised excluded middle fallacy. So it goes.

[Stranger]

The point I was trying to make was that if we do not know what consciousness is, we can't draw such conclusions as are made in the extended quote.

Spot the flagrant double standard!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Soul is a conclusion I draw from the impossibility of material science to account for the reality of my conscious awareness and ability to implement acts of free will.  I know you will claim "personal incredulity" but to me it really is "impossibility".

So using the same reasoning, was it ok to claim Thor before science could account for thunder?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Spot the flagrant double standard!

A double standard he'll just ignore. Faced with a choice between an incomplete understanding of consciousness and no understanding whatever of "soul", he'll opt for the latter every time. He also incidentally fails entirely to grasp that it's not necessary to know everything about consciousness to know that it's existence at all is consistent with the phenomenon of emergence.     

[Bubbles]

AB,

So using the same reasoning, was it ok to claim Thor before science could account for thunder?

Like snow, being God fluffing up his pillows. Or your belly button being where god went "you're  done" you're  done" like buns in an oven. Or the little ridge between your mouth and nose being where the an angel told your baby self.....shhh! So you would forget your knowledge of heaven.

Anyone remember any others?

[Maeght]

Soul is a conclusion I draw from the impossibility of material science to account for the reality of my conscious awareness and ability to implement acts of free will.  I know you will claim "personal incredulity" but to me it really is "impossibility".

Call it what you like but its still personal incredulity.

[Rhiannon]

AB,

So using the same reasoning, was it ok to claim Thor before science could account for thunder?

Or that Alan's god was responsible for a flood that wiped out most of life on earth.

That's a nice story for the kiddies on Sunday Scjool.

[Stranger]

Call it what you like but its still personal incredulity.

Well, it might just be blind, unreasoning faith...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why "just"?

I was simply trying to emphasise the difference between something nurtured over millions of years to become the most complex creation known to exist, and what would be the inevitable chaotic result of something subjected to the unguided aimless forces of nature over the same period.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So using the same reasoning, was it ok to claim Thor before science could account for thunder?

So when material science reaches the limits of all there is to possibly discover, and our conscious awareness is still a mystery, what then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was simply trying to emphasise the difference between something nurtured over millions of years to become the most complex creation known to exist, and what would be the inevitable chaotic result of something subjected to the unguided aimless forces of nature over the same period.

Makes no sense at all. What "inevitable chaotic result", and again - other than your wishful thinking that is was otherwise - why relegate our existence by natural means to a "just"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So when material science reaches the limits of all there is to possibly discover, and our conscious awareness is still a mystery, what then?

Then, if that did happen, we'd have arrived at a "don't know" - which is where the Norse were before the cause of thunder was discovered. They too didn't know whether "science" would ever have the answer to that question, but just dropping in Thor to fill the gap was still bad thinking.

And that in essence is what you're doing here.

[Stranger]

So when material science reaches the limits of all there is to possibly discover, and our conscious awareness is still a mystery, what then?

This is pure fantasy.

1/ You have nothing but blind faith and/or personal incredulity to support the idea that conscious awareness will remain a mystery.

2/ When (if) "material science reaches the limits of all there is" how are we going to know that it has?

[torridon]

Dear Ippy,
I am sorry that you seem unable to understand the points I try to make about the shortcomings in assuming that there is no God and that we are all just reconstituted bits of star debris which just happen to exist on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten material in this vast universe.  I hope you will one day discover the reality of God's love for you and the amazing way He has brought you into existence.

The shortcomings in assuming there is a god far outweigh the shortcomings of not, imo.  If we stick to what is justified by the evidence then we do not introduce all manner of inexplicabilities.

[torridon]

I was simply trying to emphasise the difference between something nurtured over millions of years to become the most complex creation known to exist, and what would be the inevitable chaotic result of something subjected to the unguided aimless forces of nature over the same period.

FYI, 'unguided aimless forces' produce better design outcomes than 'intelligent' design.  Biologists have recognised this for some time, it is known as Orgel's Second Rule :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel's_rules

For an example of this, consider why the very best of our photovoltaic cells are still not as efficient at fixing sunlight as the humble leaf on a tree.

[ippy]

Dear Ippy,
I am sorry that you seem unable to understand the points I try to make about the shortcomings in assuming that there is no God and that we are all just reconstituted bits of star debris which just happen to exist on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten material in this vast universe.  I hope you will one day discover the reality of God's love for you and the amazing way He has brought you into existence.

You are unable to understand the simplest of things A B, such as where you have written, 'I am sorry that you seem unable to understand the points I try to make about the shortcomings in assuming that there is no God'.

There's not many of us referred to by that technical misnomer atheist on a daily basis, that think there is any valid reason to think there is a god in the first place to be able to deny.

I also have a hope for you that you rise above your indoctrinated self, find yourself able to get over this bad case of cognitive dissonance and no longer need to keep on exercising your convoluted mental gymnastics.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

For an example of this, consider why the very best of our photovoltaic cells are still not as efficient at fixing sunlight as the humble leaf on a tree.

Which just goes to show that God can do things much better than human beings. 

The processes referred to as being driven by natural unguided forces may well be subjected to events guided by an intelligence beyond our understanding to bring about the incredible creations we see in nature.

[torridon]

Soul is a conclusion I draw from the impossibility of material science to account for the reality of my conscious awareness and ability to implement acts of free will.  I know you will claim "personal incredulity" but to me it really is "impossibility".

Well you are deeply confused then, if you think proposing something wholly unevidenced and wholly inexplicable is the way forward when faced with challenges to our understanding. The honest thing to do is to knuckle down and try to understand what the evidence is telling us rather than flying off into la-la land.

[torridon]

Which just goes to show that God can do things much better than human beings. 

The processes referred to as being driven by natural unguided forces may well be subjected to events guided by an intelligence beyond our understanding to bring about the incredible creations we see in nature.

So, you just haven't understood the principle then.  Ultimately, complexity emerges from simplicity, not the other way round.

[Enki]

So when material science reaches the limits of all there is to possibly discover, and our conscious awareness is still a mystery, what then?

I'm not sure how we could ever know when science has reached the limits of all there is to possibly discover, but if that were so, and if conscious awareness would still be a mystery, then we would have to look elsewhere for other possible answers, validated of course by as much reason and evidence as we could muster. And if we couldn't find another alternative route, then we would have to say 'we don't know' as a holding position.

Now let me put the same argument to you:

If science is able to give a complete answer which solves the problem of conscious awareness, and this answer excludes your idea of a soul, what then?

[SusanDoris]

I'm not sure how we could ever know when science has reached the limits of all there is to possibly discover, but if that were so, and if conscious awareness would still be a mystery, then we would have to look elsewhere for other possible answers, validated of course by as much reason and evidence as we could muster. And if we couldn't find another alternative route, then we would have to say 'we don't know' as a holding position.

Now let me put the same argument to you:

If science is able to give a complete answer which solves the problem of conscious awareness, and this answer excludes your idea of a soul, what then?

I shall be sitting here watching for the reply.....